32 Dems refuse to swallow budget

Some Democrats are unhappy about the budget deal, and for once, they didn’t have to swallow it.

House Democrats have repeatedly been the go-to source of last-minute votes when Republicans needed to muscle a must-pass bill through the chamber they control. To end the government shutdown, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi got all 198 Democrats present to vote for a bill that kept in place the sequester — a vote that many members were not pleased to cast.

Story Continued Below

But on Thursday — as the House acted on the budget deal crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — Democrats were given a lot more flexibility to vote how they wanted because Republicans had the votes to pass the plan.

The budget passed overwhelmingly, 332-94. Ultimately, 32 Democrats, many unhappy about the lack of an unemployment insurance extension in the bill, voted against it — still a small minority of the 201 Democrats in the House.

“It is unconscionable that the budget deal before us does not extend unemployment benefits,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on the floor before voting against the budget.

Republicans promised Democrats they would produce 120 votes in favor of the package, which in addition to the budget also included the “doc fix” that would prevent Medicare payment cuts. It was a target the GOP exceeded by a large margin with 171 of their members voting in favor of the bill. In October, fewer than 90 Republicans voted in favor of a bill to reopen government.

Democrats were on the hook for only 100 votes on the budget deal — ultimately, 163 voted in favor of the deal.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) called his support of the bill a “hold your nose and vote yes vote.”

“I think we feel that really the responsibility should be on the Republicans to make sure this bill gets through,” Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said. Moments before walking on the floor to cast his ballot, Takano, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said he was still undecided.

And while there was no official Democratic whip count to encourage members to support the bill, there was still some pushing from leadership.

At a meeting of the Democratic caucus on Thursday morning, Pelosi rallied the needed votes to get the job done, telling members that while most didn’t like the bill, passage was necessary to allow them to move forward on other issues.

She encouraged her members to support the bill by telling them to “embrace the suck,” often spelling “S-U-C-K” instead of saying the actual word, according to attendees of the closed meeting.

“We need to get this off the table so we can go forward,” Pelosi told her members, according to an attendee.

But those Democrats who had been pressured into backing deals they didn’t like before were given a reprieve this time.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who voted against the budget, said he was pleased that leadership was vocal in complaining about the lack of an unemployment extension, and he wasn’t pressured to back the deal. And he said he understands why so many Democrats voted for the bill despite being unhappy with the content.

“This is one of those where a ‘no’ vote is harder to defend than a ‘yes’ vote, so it’s a task,” said Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who voted against the bill, said many Democrats wanted Republicans to carry the weight on the legislation.

“We don’t want to own it because it’s not good, it’s theirs,” she said. “I want to see them put up votes, so I think the way we express that is we don’t all have to ‘embrace the suck.’”

She opposed the bill because of the lack of unemployment benefits.

“I’m just heartbroken with leaving here with unemployment insurance not done,” Schakowsky said. “I can’t even imagine what these holidays are going to be like for people.”

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who voted against the bill, said it was about voicing opposition to the change in federal pension benefits.

“I could vote for this bill, but I think we’re unnecessarily attacking federal workers for no reason,” he said. “We could have found money other places to do and achieve the same savings, but we just had to do it because for some reason we just have to be mean, or negative toward our workers and I just don’t believe it. This is probably more sticking up for them.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who vote against the deal, was still saying he was undecided minutes before casting his vote.

“I’m glad that we’ve lessened some of the sequester, but there are still so many other things that we didn’t get done that we should have done,” Pocan said. “I know our leader said ‘embrace the suck’ but I didn’t run for Congress just not to suck.”